In the RC Church the Lady Chapel is on the right, Her Statues are on the right [ as you look at the altar that is] The Sacred Heart altar is on the left and any statues of Her Son are on the left.

Now in the East however, Our Lady is on the left and Her Son on the right

So why the difference ?

Logged

"Never let anyone try to tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern. The West was fully Orthodox for a thousand years; and her venerable liturgy is far older than any of her heresies."- St. John Maximovitch

Of course, such an explanation assumes that the Father stands/is seated on His throne with His "back" facing us. I've always figured that if priest and people stand in the same orientation offering sacrifice to God, then He is facing our direction. Or have I been wrong?

My tendency is to say that the right hand side is the place of honour, and so the Mother of God is to the right of Christ, just as Christ is at the right hand of the Father. There is a Byzantine icon where Christ is enthroned, and on His right and left there are any number of saints; the Virgin is always at His immediate right.

Mor Ephrem is a nice guy. Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

Of course, such an explanation assumes that the Father stands/is seated on His throne with His "back" facing us. I've always figured that if priest and people stand in the same orientation offering sacrifice to God, then He is facing our direction. Or have I been wrong?

My tendency is to say that the right hand side is the place of honour, and so the Mother of God is to the right of Christ, just as Christ is at the right hand of the Father. There is a Byzantine icon where Christ is enthroned, and on His right and left there are any number of saints; the Virgin is always at His immediate right.

Why do they always say right hand of God? Why not the left hand? Is there something or less correct about being left handed?

I don't think it's a matter of saying that left handed people are going to be cast down into the black fiery pits of hell to burn and languish for all eternity...it's simply an honour thing. The right side is considered the place of honour. In India, unlike in the West, the bride does not stand at the groom's left, but at his right. If you have a guest of honour, that person is seated at your right.

Mor Ephrem is a nice guy. Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

Let me link a few bits<<Probably because the Creed states -............AND SITS AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER>> [Orthodoc]

and <<Of course, such an explanation assumes that the Father stands/is seated on His throne with His "back" facing us. I've always figured that if priest and people stand in the same orientation offering sacrifice to God, then He is facing our direction. Or have I been wrong? >> [ Mor Ephrem]

I realise that 'tradition ' comes into this

and Mor Ephrem also adds <<My tendency is to say that the right hand side is the place of honour, and so the Mother of God is to the right of Christ, just as Christ is at the right hand of the Father.>>

BUT I still am left wondering - any more thoughts to put into the melting pot for me ?

Logged

"Never let anyone try to tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern. The West was fully Orthodox for a thousand years; and her venerable liturgy is far older than any of her heresies."- St. John Maximovitch

Hypo-Ortho

Consider the Deisis on the templon (ikonostas) in an Orthodox or Byzantine Catholic or Coptic church, Slave.

With Christ Pantokrator ("Ruler of All") to the immediate right of the Holy Doors as we face the ikonostas, we see the Most Holy Theotokos, the "Leading Lady," on the immediate left of the Holy Doors as we face the templon (i.e., to our Lord's right, "and the Queen stood at the right...."). She points to her Divine Son, she leads us to Him. On the other side of Christ, i.e., to our right as we face the templon, and completing the Deisis, is the Holy Glorious Prophet and Foreunner of Christ, John the Baptizer, in an attitude of obeisance to Christ.

In our homes, and especially at our home altars or icon shrines, we duplicate the ancient icon arrangement we see on the templons of our churches, for our homes are "little churches." Hope this helps. It has nothing to do with sexism.

You know I don't intend to be argumentative over this but I think you have missed my point !

Can I go back a bit and ask you to imagine something.

1) You are in an RC Church [ sorry but you will I hope see why in a minute ]

You are facing the altar.

Now on your right is the Lady Altar and on your left is the Sacred Heart Altar.

2) Now you are standing in an Eastern Catholic [ or Orthodox ] Church [ OK I know terminology ]

You are facing the Iconostasis

On your right is the Icon of Christ at the right hand side of the Royal Doorsand at the other side of the Royal Doors - at the left hand side is the Icon of the Theotokos.

Now my question is still - why the difference - you are facing the same way in both scenarios .

I really am trying to understand why

Logged

"Never let anyone try to tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern. The West was fully Orthodox for a thousand years; and her venerable liturgy is far older than any of her heresies."- St. John Maximovitch

Hypo-Ortho

slave, at the Polish RC Church of Our Lady of Czestochowa in Worcester, MA, as you face the altar, the Icon-Shrine of Our Lady of Czestochowa is to the *left.* The Sacred Heart statue is over the tabernacle on the *right.* So it's not universal in the RC church that the "Lady Chapel" is always on the right as you face the altar. Btw, they interchanged these shrines in the Worcester church when they turned the main altar around so that Mass could be celebrated facing the people. So maybe the rule in the RC church is not so hard and fast after all.

I really can't think of any RC church that I've ever visited where the situation of the icons/statues of Christ and the Blessed Mother were not the same as on an iconostasis, and I've been to quite a number of Latin churches!!

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

"Never let anyone try to tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern. The West was fully Orthodox for a thousand years; and her venerable liturgy is far older than any of her heresies."- St. John Maximovitch

Mor Ephrem is a nice guy. Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

I dont know what RCC you are referring to, but I have always seen the Blessed Mother's altar on the left hand side, and the altar to St. Joseph the Betrothed on the right hand side. This is tradition in the RCC as far as I know. Now, Im coming from what was done for many centuries prior to VatII so goosh knows what the configurations are today. :-

No puzzle — there is no ironclad rule about this form of iconography in RC churches like there is with the iconostasis layout in the Orthodox tradition. I’ve seen images of Our Lady left (Gospel side in good old RC parlance — the side of the altar where the priest read it) and right (Epistle side), of Jesus and Mary, of Mary and Joseph, etc. etc.

I’ve made some nice font changes to several (Faith, Hours) of my pages yesterday and today so those with fully enabled PCs, enjoy!

In the local NO Church where I am forced to attend due to the EXTREME distance to a real RC Mass, that is Tridentine, the Lady Altar, St. Joseph Altar, and St. Therese of Lisieux are on the left as you are facing the High Altar. To the right of the Altar is the ST. Patrick Altar (this is the patronal Altar of the parish), Sacred Heart Altar, and Sorrowful Mother Altar (Pieta replica). In the back we have the St. Anthony Altar.

About 15 miles away is the old Passionist Church which used to be known as "Osage Mission" and is the cradle of the Church for SouthEast Kansas BTW. Anyway as you face the High Altar in that Chapel, you have the Lady Altar to the left, and another Altar I cannot remember who it is dedicated to though. Then on the Left side you have the St. Joseph Altar, and another Altar I cannot remember who it is dedicated to either. Than in back you have the St. Gerard Majella (it is after all a Passionist Church) and the Sacred Heart Altars.

Of course in Mahoney's "Cathedral" there is no statue of Our Lady except for the blaspemous one portraying Our Lady as a militant lesbian over the front door.

Joe Zollars

Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.

Why are you forced to attend, Joe? I feel the same way you do because I am a Byzantine Catholic, but when I'm away at school I can only go to "NO" parishes. But please don't make the same mistakes I have made and view it as a punishment. There are some people in places like Afghanistan and China who risk their lives just to attend liturgy. They would love to in the comfortable western world we are in. Yes, it is frustrating to see the liturgy not carried out in a proper manner or the sacraments disrespected. But despair only weighs down on our souls because it is sinful. May God bless you!

In China the Liturgical destruction was never truly implemented. Actually it was and the NO elements of it went into the Chinese Patriotic Church while those elements that were steadfast to teh Traditional Mass, remained in communion. Coincidence? I think not.

I feel that way because I know the origins of the Novus Ordo mass. it was composed by 6 Protestant Ministers principally. Every time I go, I think "why" why did I convert and loose a great deal of my family? why did I loose most of my friends? when this is essentially a Protestant Communion Service*.

*I do hold that the NO is a valid Mass, but it is not as efficacious as the Traditional Mass which is the true form of the Liturgy in the Latin Rite.

Joe Zollars

Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.

I can only tell you from my background as a former RC in the 40's, 50's and 60's and that is the Blessed Mother's altar was always on the left hand side of the main altar and St. joseph altar was on the right hand side. Both side altars contained tabranacles in addition to the main altar. Memory escapes me but I know that the Holy Eucharist was placed in the tabranacle of the Blessed Mothers altar at certain times and that during Lent the St. Joseph altar took on a special significance. To be exact I would need the help of another elder pre-VII RC to refresh my failing memory. :-JoeS

Well I am fast coming to the conclusion that in this particular case there is absolutely no hard and fast rule as to which side altars are placed where.

My own Parish is over 100 years old and apart from the moving forward of the Main Altar in accordance with Vat II no Structural changes apart from the removal of the Gates to the Main Altar - the rails are still there and the gates for the 2 side altars- were made. It is substantially as it was built .

Logged

"Never let anyone try to tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern. The West was fully Orthodox for a thousand years; and her venerable liturgy is far older than any of her heresies."- St. John Maximovitch

My own Parish is over 100 years old and apart from the moving forward of the Main Altar in accordance with Vat II

The truth is Vatican II didn’t mandate that. All it said was that altars should be freestanding, not must (unless the two words mean the same thing, must, in Catholic theology and/or canon law — I don’t think they do).

My own Parish is over 100 years old and apart from the moving forward of the Main Altar in accordance with Vat II

The truth is Vatican II didn’t mandate that. All it said was that altars should be freestanding, not must (unless the two words mean the same thing, must, in Catholic theology and/or canon law — I don’t think they do).

And of course one can have a freestanding altar and still face the correct way--"towards God"--as we do!

The Catholic cathedral here in Montreal has a magnificent free-standing altar. If the pastor of the only Indult community here in this city were given the privilege to celebrate Mass on that altar, he would have a heart attack.

Hypo-Ortho

And of course one can have a freestanding altar and still face the correct way--"towards God"--as we do!

And that may have been what the legitimate liturgical movement in the Roman Rite had in mind. They wanted the altar freestanding so they could walk all the way around it while censing it.

But, Serge, as I've observed on TV, even Pope John Paul II celebrates Mass "facing the people" on such a free-standing altar under the magnificent baroque balduchino in St. Peter's Basilica! And he does it everywhere else "facing the people" on free-standing altars, I've observed, as well. When the chief liturgist of the Roman Rite does it this way, well, there's an example to follow if one wants to "keep in line" and out of trouble, no? Or am I missing the point and the discussion is only about free-standing altars, no matter which side of them the priest stands?

But, Serge, as I've observed on TV, even Pope John Paul II celebrates Mass "facing the people" on such a free-standing altar under the magnificent baroque balduchino in St. Peter's Basilica! And he does it everywhere else "facing the people" on free-standing altars, I've observed, as well. When the chief liturgist of the Roman Rite does it this way, well, there's an example to follow if one wants to "keep in line" and out of trouble, no? Or am I missing the point and the discussion is only about free-standing altars, no matter which side of them the priest stands?

I hear he does it the right way at Castelgandolfo (one of his residences in Italy) but I never claimed he did so anywhere else — simply that the legitimate RC liturgical movement (which was a pre-Vatican II phenomenon) had different intentions behind wanting freestanding altars than ‘wreckovators’ 35 years ago and today did or do.

The Pope celebrates Mass for the vast majority of the year in his private chapel at the Vatican or at his summer residence, and in both, the altar is not freestanding, so he must celebrate "with his back to the people".

Mor Ephrem is a nice guy. Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

Hypo-Ortho

The Pope celebrates Mass for the vast majority of the year in his private chapel at the Vatican or at his summer residence, and in both, the altar is not freestanding, so he must celebrate "with his back to the people".

Probably only because of the size of the chapels therein, Mor, and the "private" nature of such Papal Masses, attendance restricted to a few select members of the Papal household and "by invitation only" to some small number of visiting others, usually dignitaries of some kind.

PRIVATE "Low" Masses without a congregation required or needed to be in attendance, not even an altar boy. Each priest would do his own silent, mumbled thing at his own preferred altar; it would be "HIS" Mass. The idea of "liturgy" (work of the people) had somehow gone out the window.

PRIVATE "Low" Masses without a congregation required or needed to be in attendance, not even an altar boy. Each priest would do his own silent, mumbled thing at his own preferred altar; it would be "HIS" Mass. The idea of "liturgy" (work of the people) had somehow gone out the window.

actually ALL Tridentine Masses except extremely rare cases in Mission Countries which have to have a case by case dispensation from the Pope or Ecclesia Dei Commision REQUIRE and Alcolyte, which is a clerical role.

However their are always and were always people who took matters into their own hands.

As for the necesity of so many Altars, Concelebrations only happened at Ordinations where the newly ordained would concelebrate with the Bishop as a sign of unity with him. At no other times did Concelebrations occur, even when a Priest was vested as a Deacon. This was the ancient practice of the Roman Rite. In fact by the time of St. Gregory the Great the practice of concelebration had long been suppressed, but it is believed to have been suppressed through organic develpment.

Joe Zollars

Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.

here is a post from a list of Traditional Catholic Youth that I moderate:

There's a lot of history here.

First, the development of the Low and High Masses. There are about 5different "forms" for a TLM celebrated by a Priest, but they are allbasically variations of these two. To start out, it is important toremember that these are English terms. The proper terms for these two typesof Mass are "Missa Privata" (Private Mass) and "Missa Solemnis" (SolemnMass), and that right there tells you a lot about them.

A proper Missa Solemnis is what we refer to in English as a "Solemn HighMass" - The Priest is served by a Deacon and Subdeacon, incense is used,everything that is not quiet or silent is chanted, etc. The Missa Solemniswas the normative form of a Mass with a congregation everywhere up until theaftermath of the Protestant Revolt (more on that below). It is stillSUPPOSED to be the normative form. (as an aside, one of the supposed goalsof the Liturgical Revolutionaries in the 60s was to eliminate the Low Massand make every Mass a Solemn one - but like all of their stated goals, itturned out to be the opposite of what they actually did). There is onevariation on the Missa Solemnis that I know of, the Missa Cantata. This isessentially a Missa Solemnis without the Deacon and Subdeacon, and isusually referred to as a "High Mass" in English.

It is possible that in the beginning, the entire congregation made theresponses along with the Deacon and Subdeacon. However, with thedevelopment of Gregorian Chant, this became somewhat impractical. To give amodern example, the people at St. Agnes (at the Latin NO) are used tochanting the Pater Noster along with the Priest. However, they only knowthe usual setting. At All Souls, a different setting of chant is usedthroughout the Mass. At the Pater Noster then, we have the unfortunatesituation of the Priest and Choir singing one setting and the people singinganother. It's pretty awful. Now, in the TLM, the Pater Noster is neversung, but there are many other parts that are, and some of them can changequite a bit, depending on the solemnity of the feastday and otherconsiderations. Therefore, the practice developed of having a choir drawnfrom the congregation, stationed with the congregation in the Nave (usuallyin a loft), and trained to make the proper responses in the proper settings,on the part of the congregation.

A proper Missa Privata is just that - private. It is said by a Priest withone server (who says the responses quietly) and no congregation (aside fromthe Saints and Angels, of course). Why have a private form of the Mass? Inthe West, concelebration was suppressed pretty early on, but Priests werealso required to say Holy Mass once a day. Private Mass was the solution,and a pretty good one, as it meant that the Holy Sacrifice was offered inpropitiation for the sins of the world quite a bit more often than it istoday. After the Protestant Revolt, Catholics in many areas were persecutedand driven "underground." When you are hiding from the authorities, ittends to be inadvisable to have nice, loud Solemn Masses. Therefore, thepractice developed of having the Priest say a Missa Privata with acongregation (As a sidenote, the Irish would often have Masses underneath atavern or hall where some "lookouts" would be dancing that "Riverdance" typeof folk dance. If they saw the authorities coming, they would change thedance and "tap" a message to the congregation below to hide the Priest).After centuries of having silent Low Masses and no other external signs ofFaith, the Irish and English Catholics tended to view singing, processions,religious festivals, etc., as "Anglican." It is also important to point outthat even while this was going on, the normative form of Mass in theCatholic countries remained the Missa Solemnis, and even the missionaries ofthe 15th and 16th Centuries were celebrating the Missa Solemnis with as muchsplendor as possible in the wilds of South America, Africa, and Asia.

Obviously, there was originally no congregation and thus no response fromthem. Equally obvious, the congregation would not be making responses outloud when they were trying to celebrate the Holy Mass in secret. However,two developments occurred. One is that "Low Masses" began to be celebrated- though not as the norm - in the Catholic countries as well. There aremany reasons for this, but the primary ones are time and effort. It takes alot less effort to celebrate a Low Mass, and it takes less time, which canbe a valid concern if you have a huge parish and need to cram enough HolyMasses for them into Sunday Morning (before Pius XII, you could not start aHoly Mass after 12 Noon). This often happened in America, which brings usto the second development. After English won out against German to be thenational language of the US, and many persecuted Catholics began streaminginto America (out of the frying pan?), one group of immigrants becameincredibly powerful and more or less ruled the Church in America - theIrish. This was due largely to their native command of English, and thefact that with the huge amounts of immigrants during the Famine, they wereoften the largest ethnic group among US Catholics.

Now, in England, the restored Hierarchy of 1850 was led by Nicholas CardinalWiseman, who grew up in Spain, was an Italianophile, and loved Solemnity.This caused a lot of friction with the Catholics who tended to viewsolemnity as Anglican, but both traditions ended up being preserved inEnglish Catholicism (until, of course, 1962). In America, however, therewas no Cardinal Wiseman. The Irish Bishops more or less made the Low Massthe norm, and tended to view other ethnic parishes - with their SolemnMasses and Processions and Sermons in "foreign languages" - as somewhatsuspicious (for the worst example of this, look into the Archbishop Ireland/ Alexis Toth affair - Ireland was basically responsible for a huge schismand the foundation of the "Orthodox (schismatic) Church of America"). Addedto this official disdain was the problem of numbers. There were so manyCatholics that Churches could not be built fast enough, and therefore theexisting Churches had huge parishes. With only so much time between 4am(when some of the big city parishes would have their first Mass) and Noon,Low Masses were relied upon because they were quick - especially if you dropthe Sermon (remember also that before Pope St. Pius X, most people did notreceive Communion every Sunday).

Low Masses are beautiful in their simplicity and silence, but they aredefinitely not as pleasing to the senses as a Solemn Mass - especially ifyou were from a Catholic country and were used to solemnity! The firstadaptation of the Low Mass was the "4 hymns." To add some music to theMass, hymns were sung for the procession/prayers at the foot of the altar;the Offertory; the Communion; and the recession. The problem with thisapproach is that music should not just be in the Liturgy for decoration;music is properly a part of Holy Mass. Pope St. Pius X made this point in"Tre La Solicitudino." Therefore, if you are going to sing something duringHoly Mass, sing the propers! This led to two further developments. Thefirst is the "Sung Low Mass" in which the Priest does not chant anything,but the Choir sings the propers. The second is the dialogue Mass, where thepeople make (or more to the point, attempt to make) the responses of theserver. There are many problems with this - a lot of the same problems thatled to the development of the Choir in the Solemn Mass. The averageparishioner is not going to know Latin. He may have a Missal, but Latinpronunciation can not be learned by a Missal alone. The result of adialogue Mass is what we have at the Indult here - 20 to 30 people trying tomake the responses and instead making a garbled mess.

The solution to all of this is simple. Solemn Mass should be the norm, andthe people who want to make responses should join the choir. Then theSolemn Masses will be properly sung, and the Low Masses will be properlysilent. Both traditions can exist side-by-side, but they really shouldn'tbe joined.

Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.

Hypo-Ortho

It still appears as quite a mess from the outside-of-Rome persepective, Joe.

At my step-grandfather's funeral in a pre-Vatican II Polish RC church, three requiem Masses for his soul were celebrated simultaneously (a common abuse of the time: more stipends!). It was hard to concentrate on the silent "Private" Low Masses (*without* altar boys!) at the two side altars while a High Mass (Missa Cantata) was being sung aloud in Latin at the main altar (with only the organist giving the sung responses, no choir), and the non-Catholics present were totally confused. The explanation: Three Masses are better than one!

I'm not sure what the obsession is with the Tridentine mass among "Traditional" Roman Catholics.

The only Tridentine mass I have been to consisted of whispers and people with their heads dug in missals. I couldn't hear the priest as half the liturgy was performed silently. It was frankly rather boring.

I really don't see the appeal, If I was forced with the option I would rather go to a Novus Ordo mass that is celebrated reverently than a Tridentine mass.

Anyway, might I remind you JoeZ that this is an Orthodox forum, and the topic of your posts should tie into Orthodoxy somehow.

Hypo-Ortho

Bobby<<Anyway, might I remind you JoeZ that this is an Orthodox forum, and the topic of your posts should tie into Orthodoxy somehow.>>

Thanks for this reminder, Bobby, because sometimes I'm just as guilty of it as JoeZ, *AND I'M ORTHODOX* (but with many RC relatives)! Sorry for when I go astray. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! <bowing low and asking for the forum's forgivenesss>

"The Latin Mass magazine, one of the finest of the new publications on the market, is on the cutting edge of Catholic traditionalism, and is must reading for those who cherish the Church we grew up in. Buy, read it, send it to a brother or sister in the catacombs." -Patrick J. Buchanan

Nice posting, Joe (some of the ideas seem to come from Thomas Day), but I agree it doesn’t really fit here. It belongs on the York Forum. This place is about Byzantine (Orthodox and Catholic), Oriental and Assyrian rites.

The only Tridentine mass I have been to consisted of whispers and people with their heads dug in missals. I couldn't hear the priest as half the liturgy was performed silently. It was frankly rather boring.

The Divine Liturgy contains a great number of silent prayers by the priest and (alas!) it is often not said in vernacular in America. Just be careful not to judge them for things we do!

sorry, I was trying to respond to statements that were made. (stiking breast) mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. however many of these actually do apply as well to WR Orthodoxy.

now I am very sorry, but I must in good conscience respond to a few statements that have been made:

Hypo Ortho: Saying Mass without an Alcolyte was a Liturgical abuse. The Alcolyte was actually a clerical role and the "altar Boy" was an exception to the canonical rule. The very rubrics indicate that an Alcolyte is needed. For instance to take the Missal from the Epistle Side to the Gospel side.

H-O: three requims instead of one: Concelebrations were an excommunicatable offense in the Latin Rite. If you are in such a situation again, focus on the Missa Cantata or Missa Solesmes at the High Altar and treat the Missa Privata at the side Altars as just that, the Priest and Alcolytes Private prayer to God. Many old HandMissals also contained hints for assisting at more than one Mass simultaneously.

Bobby: Silent Masses can provide an excelent way in which to contemplate the divine and really focus on the Mass.

Serge: I only posted it here in an attempt to answer some statements that were made. I would only post it at the York Forum if similar statements were made.

Nickolas: I got it down after two visits. Of course I had been watching the Latin Mass videos for over a year and a halph.

Frobisher et Bobby: LMM is actually a VERY good publication fighting against the errors in the current RCC, at least it was 9 months ago when my subscription lapsed. However they are too eager to cave. I think Remnant Magazine is better. I remember their seemed to be some concern a while back about Fr. Mclucas' article on the "Emasculation of the Priesthood" which is a fantastic expose of the feminazi plot to get women ordained and failing that to get rid of the Priesthood altogether. However the Byzantine Tradition of married clergy, etc. is openly acknowledged in the footnotes it is not spoken of in the main body as it is not comparable to the venerable Western Traditions.

Bobby: Our "obsession" is with decent Liturgy, Catholic Faith, and Godward Worship. Our "obsession" is not with happy clappy sing and dance heretical services passing for a Catholic Mass in most Catholic Churches. To see what I am talking about go to novusordowatch.org/archive.html

Sorry to go on and on about this, but when ones faith is being literally destroyed from within you have a tendency to be on the defensive.

Joe Zollars

Logged

These posts no longer represent my beliefs and I in no way endorse their contents.